Say 300 launchers each with 5-10 harden launch hangars. Keep moving the launchers around. Now the Russians would require 1500-3000 warheads to take all of them out, all while being limited to 1550 under the treaty.

Under New START, the hardened launch hangers would each count towards the total number of ICBM launchers. That and on-site inspections makes preserving the probability of location uncertainty doubtful.

The New START treaty between the United States and Russia, which went into force in 2011, restricts deployed mobile launchers to ICBM basesa nd nondeployed launchers to military production, repair and storage facilities. Which, in the event of a nuclear war, negates mobile launchers’ mobility advantage. It would take hours to disperse the slow-moving vehicles away from their bases as the nukes begin flying.

There are no restrictions on where deployed mobile launchers of ICBMs may be located. These launchers may leave their basing areas for field deployments, similar to the deployments from their bases of ballistic missile submarines and heavy bombers. Because mobile ICBMs are considered survivable when deployed in the field and therefore stabilizing, their unhampered operation while deployed in the field is permitted.

The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population. A few holes in the ground are much less easy to show off to your neighbours and tax-paying population. The question is which is more effective, a quiet deterrent that's there doing its job without fuss or something that you need to roll out in public to convince everyone how much power you have?

Also worth noting that of that list only Russia and China have the capability to build and field a full triad. India and North Korea have to rely on ground based missiles. Also, those nations build wheeled launchers for smaller IRBMs so the rationale and the technology base is already there.

The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population. A few holes in the ground are much less easy to show off to your neighbours and tax-paying population. The question is which is more effective, a quiet deterrent that's there doing its job without fuss or something that you need to roll out in public to convince everyone how much power you have?

Also worth noting that of that list only Russia and China have the capability to build and field a full triad. India and North Korea have to rely on ground based missiles. Also, those nations build wheeled launchers for smaller IRBMs so the rationale and the technology base is already there.

Are you serious? You think mobility has been the holy grail since day once because they look good in parades?

You don't need a harden launcher with the much lower number of warheads currently. What needs to be done is go back to the old shell game idea. Say 300 launchers each with 5-10 harden launch hangars. Keep moving the launchers around. Now the Russians would require 1500-3000 warheads to take all of them out, all while being limited to 1550 under the treaty. Its cheaper than Midgetman, its mobile, its a warhead sponge, and the missiles would not be rolling around the highways, being limited to only transfers between hangars, which could be secured easier than a launcher on the road.

"Rolling around highways"? As pointed out earlier (which you'd have seen if you'd actually read the thread) Midgetman, or any other mobile ICBM would not be "rolling around highways".

Two minute clip, interesting but there should be entire shows that discuss the current debate and explicitly discuss WHY the US is doing what they're doing in the face of massive Russian/Chinese nuke programs.

"massive" is hardly the correct word when describing the Chinese nuke program. Their warhead count has a mere three digits.

Are you serious? You think mobility has been the holy grail since day once because they look good in parades?

I think its a psychological factor that shouldn't be overlooked, its a common denominator for all those nations. I'm not saying its a military factor but its a bonus feature of having a mobile deterrent. You can show it off easily when you need to and hide it when you don't. I'm not questioning the obvious fact that mobility imparts a high-degree of survivability and is therefore desirable in itself. Also, wheeled transports are generally cheaper when you haven't got an aviation and/or submarine shipyard capability to give you other mobile options (I don't count the sole North Korean SSB).

Two minute clip, interesting but there should be entire shows that discuss the current debate and explicitly discuss WHY the US is doing what they're doing in the face of massive Russian/Chinese nuke programs.

I think we are going to be surprised one day.

"massive" is hardly the correct word when describing the Chinese nuke program. Their warhead count has a mere three digits.

Logged

Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Two minute clip, interesting but there should be entire shows that discuss the current debate and explicitly discuss WHY the US is doing what they're doing in the face of massive Russian/Chinese nuke programs.

"massive" is hardly the correct word when describing the Chinese nuke program. Their warhead count has a mere three digits.

"Massive" is correct. Two types of new ICBM, a new SLBM, numerous types of sub-ICBM ballistic missiles, most of which are nuclear capable, and all of which are mobile. New nuclear capable cruise missiles. They aren't pulling the warheads off old DF-5s and putting them on cruise missiles. China is well on it's way to a "Prompt Global Strike" system the US merely talks about. It ALREADY has such a system regionally. Between the DF-11/15/16/17/21/26 it can reach out to 2,200 miles in a matter of minutes. The US doesn't even have that kind of control over the Gulf of Mexico.

Are you serious? You think mobility has been the holy grail since day once because they look good in parades?

I think its a psychological factor that shouldn't be overlooked, its a common denominator for all those nations. I'm not saying its a military factor but its a bonus feature of having a mobile deterrent. You can show it off easily when you need to and hide it when you don't. I'm not questioning the obvious fact that mobility imparts a high-degree of survivability and is therefore desirable in itself. Also, wheeled transports are generally cheaper when you haven't got an aviation and/or submarine shipyard capability to give you other mobile options (I don't count the sole North Korean SSB).

The "psychological", "parade value" is, at best, a happy coincidence. Mobility has been desired from the outset and the lessons of Desert Storm only magnified its benefits.

The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population.

Ensiloed missiles typically have wheeled transporter erectors; the Russians used to roll those around the parade routes.

The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population.

Ensiloed missiles typically have wheeled transporter erectors; the Russians used to roll those around the parade routes.

Under New START, the hardened launch hangers would each count towards the total number of ICBM launchers.That and on-site inspections makes preserving the probability of location uncertainty doubtful.

Under New START only the mobile launcher itself would count, the harden shelters would not. On-site inspections only tell you where the launchers are during the inspection, if they are in inspectable areas (theoretically you could have "wartime" hideouts in non-inspectable areas). As soon as the inspection is over the launchers could be re-shuffled.

Quote

"Rolling around highways"? As pointed out earlier (which you'd have seen if you'd actually read the thread) Midgetman, or any other mobile ICBM would not be "rolling around highways".

The point is Americans do not like nuclear warheads running around our deserts or highways, so this way they can be kept in secure locations most of the time, with only short periods of transit time between shelters.

Under New START only the mobile launcher itself would count, the harden shelters would not.

IIUC, Since the hardened shelters have or are intended to have all of equipment requiredto launch an ICBM they would get counted as launchers albeit of the non-deployed varietywhich is a slightly higher limit but not on order of the typical MPS:missile ratio.

Which means the price-to-attack is potentially much less than GBSD in silos. That's typicallybeen the concern with mobile missiles; the minimum price-to-attack is conceivably achievablewith one close-in SSBN.

What would change the minimum would be HMLs operating in the vicinity of ensiloed hit-to-kill ABM interceptors; there's no limit on the latter.